House of Representatives
28 May 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- TENDERS FOR FEDERAL SUPPLIES
QUESTION
- WALKERVILLE AND WOODVILLE POST-OFFICES
QUESTION
- INTER-STATE RAILWAY TRAFFIC
QUESTION
- SOUTH AFRICAN WAR
FEDERAL FACTORY LEGISLATION
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
QUESTION
- CORONATION : ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY THE KING
SUPPLY BILL (No. 9)

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 12937

QUESTION

TENDERS FOR FEDERAL SUPPLIES

Mr GLYNN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I should like, without notice, to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence a question with regard to a telegram I have received from Adelaide in connexion with what seems to be a case of centralization, involving gross injustice to South Australia. Advertisements appeared in the evening newspapers in Adelaide on the 27th inst., inviting tenders for Waggons and harness for the Defence department in Adelaide. The tenders are to be sent in by Thursday, but the specifications must be examined in Sydney. The telegram to which I refer enters a strong remonstrance against the action of the Federal authorities in making arrangements so that tenders can be sent in from Sydney or Melbourne, but not from Adelaide. I desire to know whether the Minister willpostpone the date for the reception of tenders, so as to give people in South Australia an opportunity of tender ing.

SirWILLIAM LYNE.- I did not know anything about this matter until it was mentioned tome just now by the honorable member for South Australia, Sir Langdon Bony th on. I immediately communicated with the Secretary of Defence, Captain Collins, who will be here in a few minutes, and I shall then be able to tell the honorable member what has happened. It seems tome that if tenders are to be invited in all the States it will be an easy matter to send copies of the specifications, so that a fair chance may be given to tenderers in all the States.

page 12938

QUESTION

WALKERVILLE AND WOODVILLE POST-OFFICES

Sir L ANGDON BONYTHON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I should like, without notice, to ask the Minister for Home Affairs why it is that no progress is being made with the erection of the postoffices at Walkerville and Woodville, in South Australia?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– I am informed that the money required for the erection of these structures is provided for in the loan Estimates, which are not yet passed. If the honorable member wishes to obtainanything from the Treasurer, I prefer that he should apply to him rather than that I should do so.

page 12938

QUESTION

INTER-STATE RAILWAY TRAFFIC

Mr GLYNN:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice -

. Whether he isawarethat goods consignedfrom South Australia to places in Victoria are allowed to remain often for a week, and sometimes longer, at Serviceton before being forwarded by the Victorian Railways department, and are charged, when forwarded, higher rates than those which apply to traffic originating in Victoria ?
Has he read the letter on the subject from the chairman of the Adelaide Chamber of Commerce to the Treasurer of South Australia, and the explanation ofMr. Fitzpatrick, the Victorian Railways Commissioner, published inthe Adelaide and Melbourne press last week ?
Will the Minister call the attention of the Premiers of the States to the matter, with the view to an agreement being, through their influence, entered into by the Railways Commissioners of the States, so that an end may be made to all unfair obstructions or diversions of InterState traffic ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable and learned member’s questions are as follow : -

. I am not aware, but am making inquiries.
Yes.
I have had inquiries instituted, and am informed that the rates originally charged on railway freight to and from Melbourne, to and from the South Australian border, were at the ordinary mileage rates, as follow: -

but owing to the South Australian Railway department reducing their rates very considerably, with a view to securing the trade betweenDimboola and Serviceton, the Victorian Railway department imposed rates which, with additions, amount to -

as against the trade between the two stations referred to.

In order to counteract the baneful effect of these additional rates, goods were consigned from Adelaide to the first or second station inside Victoria, and then re-consigned at Victorian lower rates thence to Dimboola or the intermediate stations. The embargo now of the higher rates stands against the trade from Serviceton to Dimboola, and thelower preferential rates in favour of Melbourne are standing.

With regard to the third question, I have already communicated with the Ministers of Works in the various States, and have replies which I intended to have had here to-day. I will produce them to-morrow or next day. This matter is of such importance that I intend to ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister to communicate with the Premiers of the various States, in order to ascertain whether some alteration cannot be mode in the existing state of affairs.

Mr Glynn:

– I think South Australia is willing to abolish the differential rates at once.

page 12938

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister repre senting the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has carried out his often publiclyexpressed intention of consulting the Colonial Governments as to the terms of peace with the Boers?
Whether the Government has been so consulted at the present juncture; and whether he can, without public inconvenience, inform this House as to the advice tendered by it ?

Mr DEAKIN:
Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– The Government have notbeen consul ted.

page 12938

FEDERAL FACTORY LEGISLATION

Ordered (on motion by Mr. Higgins) -

That there be laid upon the table of the House a copy of the correspondence between the

Commonwealth Government and the State Governmentswith regard to the resolutions of both Federal Houses in favour of making factory legislation a subject for federal action.

page 12939

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Resolved (on motion by Mr. Skene) -

That leave of absence for the remainder of the session be granted to the honorable member for Kooyong, on the ground of urgent private business.

page 12939

QUESTION

CORONATION : ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY THE KING

Mr DEAKIN:
AttorneyGeneral · Ballarat · Protectionist

– I have the honour to move -

That a humble address of congratulation be presented to His Majesty the King, as follows -

To theking’s Most Excellent Majesty.

We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, beg leave to approach Your Majesty, and offer our respectful congratulations on the occasion of the Coronation of Your Majesty and your gracious Consort.

We desire also to convey an assurance of our loyal attachment to your throne and person, and of our sincere hope that Your Majesty’s reign will be distinguished, under the blessing of Providence, by watchful care to maintain the laws of the Empire, and promote the happiness and liberty of your subjects.

I may remind honorable members that an address in these terms has already been passed by the Senate, and only awaits the assent of this House in order that the necessary authority to present it may be forwarded. The occasion which it marks is one by no means merely ceremonial, but will be of high significance as well as impressive brilliancy. No doubt from every quarter of the Empire, and from every corner of the globe, addresses similar in their purport will be presented to His Majesty. The oneness of the race will again be manifested, in association with a pageant constituting an imposing intimation to the world of that harmony which obtains within the borders of the Empire. All its various communities, many of them gifted like ourselves with a full grant of selfgovernment, are united by and under the Crown, which is the symbol of national unity as well as of its historic memories. The successive reigns of our recent sovereigns have been marked in every instance by plentiful evidences of progress, and there is no reason to fear that the reign now opening will begin under less auspicious circumstances, or will not be productive of as rich a harvest to a people, bound together, not only by the ties of blood, but by allegiance and constitutional alliance. Therefore, in moving this address without further prelude, I merely express the hope that His Majesty’s reign may mark a further advance, and, if possible, surpass those of His Majesty’s predecessors. Wecannot hope that it will exceed in duration the great reign of that Most Gracious Queen whom it is our pride to remember on every occasion, and to whom our indebtedness is incalculable. We may, however, express the expectation that it will be rich in the development of the arts of peace, and that the stability and greatness of the Empire will be further assured during its progress.

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear !

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

– I do not think it is necessary in seconding this motion to make a lengthy speech. As a people we are all absolutely satisfied with the political conditions under which we live. We are proud of our own local independence, and also of that tie which binds us indissolubly to one of the greatest empires in the world. It is a matter of satisfaction, I am sure, to His Majesty, at the beginning of his reign, to find in one part of his Empire, instead of six isolated communities with weak voices, one united Commonwealth strengthened by federal bonds, and as determined to be united to the Empire as we are united to each other. We can all hope that, although His Majesty has had the Crown placed upon his head comparatively late in life, hemay be long spared, and that the rich judgment and experience gained by him whilst acting for Her late Majesty for many years at most important functions, will fit him thoroughly for the high position which he now holds. We wish him long life, and a reign which - although it cannot well be so long or so glorious as that of his great mother - may for true patriotism in the sovereign, and for true knowledge of his constitutional position, live worthily in the history of England.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 12939

SUPPLY BILL (No. 9)

Governor-General’s Establishment : Remission of Fodder Duties.

Resolutions of the Committee of Supply providing for the services of the year ended 30th June, 1901, as follow: - Parliament, £2,022 ; External Affairs, £8,292 ; AttorneyGeneral, £402 ; Defence, £141,575 ; and for the services of the year 1901-2, as follow : - Parliament, £30,882 ; External Affairs, £36,446 ; Attorney-General, 3,200: Home Affairs, £5,395; Defence, £937,211- adopted.

In Committee of Supply :

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Treasurer · BalaclavaTreasurer · Protectionist

– I move -

That a sum not exceeding £226,288 be granted to His Majesty for or towards defraying the ser vices of the year ending 30th June, 1902.

The supply for which I am asking on the present occasion amounts to the considerable sum of £493,944. A large portion of this has already been passed in Committee of Supply, and, therefore, my formal motion is that which I have just submitted. It is a matter of regret that we have not been able to finish the whole of the Estimates ; but towards the end of the month if is absolutely necessary to have supply in order to meet the large payments which then become due. I have now to ask for a larger sum than is usual, because in the past I have been keeping down the amounts until the committee had an opportunity of dealing with the Estimates. We have now several large amounts to pay, including £20,000 in connexion with Now Guinea, £25,000 for rifles, the purchase of which has already been sanctioned ; and also large sums to the ammunition fund. In addition, there are capitation and other grants in connexion with the Defence department. If we are to make our payments and close our accounts on the 30th June, it is necessary to have sufficient money in hand to meet this largo expenditure. Many of the sums have to be remitted to Great Britain in order to pay for stores already ordered, and others are necessary to meet payments in the early part of next month to the various militia corps, and to other persons entitled, the amounts in some States being paid half-yearly, and in other States yearly. Independent of the items I have mentioned, there is other special expenditure, and in two or three instances the votes are exhausted. The £20,000 for New Guinea was advanced by the Queensland Government, and it is only right that it should be paid as quickly as possible, in order to save charges for interest. The money for the purchase of rifles has to be paid to the Treasurer in one of the States for the purpose of being remitted to Great

– It was not true. Whoever takes notice of such statements in the press ?

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– In speaking upon the second reading of the Establishment Bill. The honorable member for Bland said -

I do not know whether the inference to be drawn from the Prime Minister’s statement is that he has had suggestions from the Colonialoffice with regard to the Governor-General’s salary.

I would like honorable members to listen to this to see whether we were taken into the confidence of the Prime Minister. The honorable member for Bland continued -

If it is not, I do not understand why he should be in receipt of despatches on the subject. It is a peculiar thing if the Colonial-office has been applied to in this matter.

Mr. Barton then interjected, “It has not.” If the Colonial-office had not been applied to, why did not the Prime Minister candidly confess that there had been suggestions made by the Colonial-office, and that these suggestions were made before the Governor-General came out here, and were embodied in a letter which arrived here four days after the establishment of the Commonwealth. I believe that this matter has been bungled, and that the whole of the people of Australia will say so. We have been placed in an awkward position before the whole world. It has been made to appear that theGovernorGeneral has resigned because this Parliament refused practically to keep the promise made to him by his responsible advisers. With all respect to the Prime Minister and, with a feeling of awkwardness in expressing myself in his absence, I say that he did not treat this matter as he ought to have done. If he gave His Excellency what was practically a pledge that a certain thing would be done within a certain time, and if - after having kept him upon tenter-hooks for eighteen months - hetold him that he was practically certain that Parliament would agree to the suggstion, he should have stood or fallen upon his action in the matter. Instead of that, on the eve of his departore, he flung a proposal before the House, told us that the matter was not one that would affect the Government, and left us to do exactly as we liked. I contend that His Excellency the GovernorGeneral has been badly treated. The moment there was any misapprehension about this matter, and the moment the Prime Minister saw, as he might have seen, that it would be difficult to give effect bo his pledges, he ought to have settled the question at once. If the proposal had been placed before us for a reasonable period, and if the leaders of the House had been consulted - as in a matter of this kind they should have been consulted, because there is no party element in it - whatever might have happened, whether we had lost the Governor - General or not, the business would have been carried through in a decent and circumspect manner, His Excellency would have been the last person in the world to object to what Parliament desired, and he could have retired for any reason but the one that has been given. The Government ought to bring down proposals setting forth the conditions under which future Governors-General shall come here. It ought to be settled once and for all, whether two large Government establishments are to be maintained, whether the Governor-General is to visit the different States, how his travelling expenses are to be paid, and what is really the salary to be given to him as a gentleman and as a Governor-General. .Finally, I declare that this matter has never been thoroughly seized by this House, and that the public do not know even now how it stands. It has been so mixed up in connexion with both the Estimates and the Bill recently passed, and has been so badly handled, owing to the procrastination of the Government, that the people of Australia have been led into a position in which they ought not to have been placed by the Government whom they have trusted.

Mr DEAKIN:
AttorneyGeneral · Ballarat · Protectionist

– On one point the honorable member for W entworth and the members of the Government will be in entire accord, and that is in desiring to make this question, as he has made it, a purely political issue between parties. We desire to avoid any possible reference, except such as is absolutely necessary, to His Excellency personally, and also to scrupulously avoid, even by implication, anything that might be construed into a reflection upon the right honorable gentleman. As a matter of fact, it appears. to me that some of the implications that might be drawn from my honorable friend’s remarks would, if strictly taken, reflect upon His Excellency.; but I feel sure they were not so intended. They were aimed, as they ought to be aimed, at the Government, who have to shoulder their responsibility in this matter, and who do so without any hesitation. May I be allowed, in passing, simply to say that the members of the Government have not used mere formal words when they have stated that the severance of His Excellency from the Commonwealth, apart from its public consequences altogether, is a matter of deep and sincere personal regret to every one of those who have been privileged to act as his advisers. This would be trueof those who were his advisers in Victoria, as well as those who are now accociated with him under the Commonwealth. I shall not have occasion in this debate to quote His Excellency except upon one matter, and then only at his own personal and direct request. If it should bo stated in this House or elsewhere that his resignation - for that is practically what it is - was occasioned by anything arising out of his relations with -his present advisers, it was His Excellency’s desire that such a statement should be given the most absolute and unqualified contradiction.

Mr Glynn:

– It is questionable whether that should be mentioned in this debate.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Surely the honorable and learned member is not so thoroughly a party man as to refuse u§ justice. He has heard assertions made and reiterated which it is His Excellency’s special wish should be contradicted, and it is surely fitting that’ in this matter His Excellency’s desire should be followed. Beyond this, His Excellency wishes it to be clearly understood that his action was in no way due to any feeling of resentment on his part regarding any action taken by Parliament or any word spoken in Parliament. His choice was made in view of all the circumstances of the situation, and without regard to the views of Parliament, or his Ministers. I think that this is a proper statement to make at His Excellency’s request, because it helps to remove still further from the arena of this discussion the personal element which it is not desirable to obtrude. No man who has held office in Australia has enjoyed such universal and well-deserved popularity as His Excellency the Governor-General.

Mr Conroy:

– What has that to do with the matter ?

Mr DEAKIN:

Government only began on the 1st January, or a day or two before when members were chosen. The first despatch was written while Lord Hopetoun was on his way to Australia, but before he had reached or touched any part of the continent ; it was before His Excellency had made any choice of Ministers, and when, in fact, no one knew what his choice would be.

Mr Poynton:

– Has the Attorney-General the despatches which passed between the present Minister for Home Affairs and the Imperial authorities?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I have to-day, at the suggestion of the honorable and learned member for Corinella, written to the Premier of New South Wales, asking as a favour to have these despatches supplied, with a view of laying them before this Parliament. When honorable members are considering the situation which faced the Commonwealth Ministry, they should note that this first despatch, at its conclusion, refers to a period preceding the establishment of the federal capital. It points out that it was then intended that the Governor-General should occupy the Government Houses at both Sydney and Melbourne, and that it might be found desirable that he should continue the same arrangement after the new capital is established.

Mr Crouch:

– Why was that decision arrived at?

Mr DEAKIN:

– As a matter of factthat was before the birth of the Commonwealth, and no witness can testify to what happens before his birth. We, as a Commonwealth, do not know why the decision was arrived at. In paragraph 7 of the despatch occurs the information -

I have already suggested to the Government of New South Wales that, until some provision has been made for entertainment allowance, the Governor-General should not be expected to entertain largely at Sydney, and I have received an assurance that a Bill will be introduced in the New South Wales Parliament to provide an allowance.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Which was clone.

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Mauger:

– They regret that the Governor-General is leaving, but they do not regret the action of this House.

Mr DEAKIN:

– They regret the departure of the Governor-General. That regret is universal and sincere, but the fact itself was not foreseen by Ministers, except as a remote contingency. His Excellency was scrupulously careful not to convey any hint or intimation of his intentions in the event of the rejection of the Bill. He was careful to observe the perfectly constitutional attitude he has always maintained - to allow his advisers to take the action they thought best, and to leave himself free to follow his own course. So far from regarding it as an indication of displeasure on Ms part, that he should have communicated with the Secretary of State for the Colonies without informing his Ministers of the fact, I take it that he so acted out of natural delicacy. If the Secretary of State had urged any consideration upon him that would have induced him to alter his opinion, it might have seemed as if he had been endeavouring to bring pressure to bear upon the Government and upon this Parliament by giving an intimation of a possible withdrawal from office. He conducted his communications with the Secretary of State quite apart from the Government, who knew nothing of them before the day on which they were laid upon the table in the Senate. We knew of them at midday on that date, and before the night closed, my honorable colleague, the Vice-President of the Executive Council, had laid the despatches upon the table of the Senate, and through the Senate before the public of the Commonwealth, within less than twelve hours of the time they were placed in the hands of the Ministry. I submit that, through the circumstances under which this proposal originated, owing to the action of New South Wales, the position in which the Government were placed owing to the unexpected prolongation of the session, the accumulation of important public business, and the necessity for dealing with the matter before the Prime Minister left for England, though they do not relieve us of the responsibility of having mistaken the situation, they do relieve us of any imputation of having neglected what we conceived to be our duty to Parliament, and to His Excellency the Governor-General. If opportunity had offered, we should have chosen a better time to bring the matter forward. We had but one hope, and it was that we should be able to pass our Bill. However much we may regret the result of this untoward series of circumstances, we feel that our action was taken in good faith, and with an earnest desire, on the one side, to keep this Chamber in a position of absolute mastery and freedom, and on the other to leave His Excellency as free as he has always been from any suspicion of self-seeking. We have, in short, endeavoured to discharge a painful duty as best we could, under what, I think, all honorable members will admit were circumstances of unprecedented difficulty.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– There is no need to enter upon airy extravagant eulogy of the Governor-General, nor is it necessary to indulge in any depreciatory references to His Excellency. We are concerned with the behaviour of the Government in concealing certain material facts from honorable members. There can be no question that about seventeen months ago the Ministry entered into an arrangement with His Excellency the Governor-General that a Bill would be brought forward providing for certain allowances. When we come to examine these allowances, I am bound to say that, as much of the expenditure would go on even though the Governor-General were not here, it ought not to be charged against him personally. Into that, however, it is not necessary to enter at present. I wish to direct attention to the duplicity of the Government. On the 31st July, last year, the honorable member for South Australia, Sir Langdon Bonython, having evidently heard something of the matter, asked the Prime Minister the following question : - ls there any truth in the report that an allowance has been made to a distinguished person in the Commonwealth (the Governor-General) ?

This question was asked during the debate on a motion for an adjournment, moved by the honorable and learned member for Illawarra, in connexion with the allowance question. In reply, the Prime Minister said : -

No. No allowances have been made to the Governor-General up to the present time. As far as I understand, the Governor-General is likely to lose from .-£16,000 to £18,000. a year owing to the amount by which his expenditure, will nave overtopped the allowance he gets. That, however, is a matter for future consideration, and no allowance has been made to the GovernorGeneral that I am aware of. If there is any such allowance made I will inform the House.

This was after the Government had agreed to submit a Bill providing for special allowances to the Governor-General. It is perfectly true that the Prime Minister might say that his answer was merely words, but the Prime Minister should recollect that we have not yet reached such a low standard that a Minister can make any statement he pleases, and then say that he did not expect any one to believe it. By this reply, the Prime Minister communicated to the House - and intended to communicate the one idea only - that no allowances were proposed, and that no arrangement had been entered into in regard to them. Now we know that he intended to mislead the House, and that he did mislead it.

The CHAIRM AN.- The honorable and learned member is not in order in saying that the Prime Minister intentionally misled the House.

Mr CONROY:

– There is no doubt that the Prime Minister did mislead many honorable members, and if he did not understand the value of what he said, he knows less what he says than we sometimes give him credit for. If the Prime Minister did not know what the effect of these words would be, there is no value in language. In order to show the mistake he made, let me quote further. The idea was prevalent that the Ministry had entered into some arrangement with regard to the GovernorGeneral’s allowances, and that it was their duty to acquaint the House with the facts. On the 29th August, one month after thedate of the question to which I have just referred, the honorable and learned member for Corio asked the Prime Minister : -

. Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made in the House of Lords on the 23rd July last by the Earl of Onslow, UnderSecretary of State for the Colonies, “that theSecretary of State for the Colonies had been informed that the question of making some further provision foi- the Australian Governor-General, for the purpose of entertaining, and towards establishment allowances, would be brought before the Parliament of the Commonwealth “ ?
Whether such information was given by the Federal Government ?
Whether such allowances and provision are to be made with the purpose of paying the additional expenses occasioned by the Prime Minister’s intention to remove the seat of the Government from the federal capital to Sydney during the recess ?

It will hardly be credited that the answer of the Prime Minister to the first question was “ No ; “ to the second question, “ No4 communication of this kind has been made by this Government ;” and to the third question, “No.” Yet we have despatches before us which show that an arrangement had already been entered into. The House concluded from these answers that no arrangement had been made, and the least we can say is that it was extremely wrong for the Prime Minister to pursue the course he did. Why did not the Government take the House into their confidence ? It may be said that it would have made no difference to the result; but what we complain of is that we had no opportunity of knowing that any arrangement had been entered into. If a promise were made by the Government, and the Governor-General acted upon it, I should feel bound, as one who allowed the Executive Government to exist, to support them in carrying out the arrangement entered into, but I should hold myself quite free five minutes afterwards to support a vote of want of confidence in them. We have known for a long time that the Maitland manifesto was a pure fiction, but we were scarcely prepared for an acknowledgment of this fact from the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General apparently thinks that the Prime Minister is not to be held responsible for what he said. He wa3 present on the occasion upon which that speech was delivered, and he may have been able to detect some humourous intention on* the part of the speaker. But the public did not know that this manifesto was intended as fiction. The intention was that the public should act on the manifesto, and it was acted on by a large number, with a result so unfortunate as to place the present Government in power, when, under other circumstances, Ministers might not have been able to even find seats in the House. As to quasi-official expenses, I do not think there is any intention to ask the Governor-General to meet them out of his own pocket. Whether or not we like the idea of a second Government House, I believe that an arrangement has been entered into between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of New South Wales, that the Government House 36 y in that State must be kept up for the next five years, and that under that arrangement large expense has been incurred in renting and furnishing another establishment for the State Governor. That arrangement, I suppose, must be adhered to, but subsequently it will be open to us to condemn the Ministry for entering into such undertakings without the knowledge of honorable members. The Government seem to be dead to a sense of responsibility to such an extent that the entire intention of the Allowance Bill was altered with the assistance of the honorable and learned member for North Melbourne. The Government has throughout shown a great lack of dignity, and of determination to insist on measures which they introduce. If I were to relate private conversations, I think it might be shown that the. Government made a promise that this Allowance Bill would not be proceeded with in view of the prevailing feeling of the House. If the Government were bound by another promise to proceed with the Bill, that promise should have been fulfilled, or, in face of defeat, the Ministry should have resigned. By their mode of conducting business, the Government are reflecting great discredit on parliamentary institutions, and against this I must enter my emphatic protest.

Mr SALMON:
Laanecoorie

Then in his despatch of 1 1th January, 1901, he mentions that, while the Parliament of New South Wales had passed an Act providing for an annual contribution towards the expenses of His Excellency’s establishment, Victoria had rejected a similar proposal, and in that month the Government knew that the States would not make any contribution of this kind, and that therefore it would be incumbent upon them to moot the proposition in the Commonwealth Parliament at the earliest date. The adoption of such a course was due to the Governor-General to enable him to understand his position, and it was suggested by Mr. Chamberlain when he wrote -

I shall be glad if you will lay this despatch before your Ministers, and will express to them my hope that they will be able to place these matters on a satisfactory footing when Parliament assembles.

The matter, however, was not put before Parliament until after we had been in session thirteen months, and, therefore, I think there is cause for an, at any rate, mild remonstrance at the Prime Minister’s dereliction of duty in this respect. As regards Mr. Chamberlain’s despatches, I think it unwise for the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make any suggestions through the Governor-General in regard to the local policy of Australia. I do not say that the terms he uses amount to dictation, but his despatch contains strong arguments to influence the judgment of Ministers, who are the servants of this House. For instance, he writes -

So far as your personal staff is concerned, I trust that your Ministers will readily agree that it is impossible to provide for them out of the salary fixed by the Act, and’ that they will be prepared to recommend to Parliament to make adequate provision for this charge. The Parliament of Canada has provided for the establishment of the Governor-General of the Dominion, in addition to his salary of 50,000 dollars, which is rather more than the salary of the Governor-General of Australia, the allowances for establishment, travelling and office expenses, amounting to nearly 30,000 dollars, in addition to the fixed salary.

Looking at the relative magnitude and importance of the duties which will fall to the staff of Your Excellency and those performed by the staff of the Governor-General of Canada, and the fact that the larger measure of independence left to the States in Australia than that enjoyed by the Provinces of the Dominion will increase rather than diminish the duties falling on Your Excellency’s staff, a larger provision than that made by Canada will no doubt be necessary, especially as the cost of living in Sydney and Melbourne must be greater than in Ottawa.

Mr. Chamberlain there decides that a salary of £10,000, and allowances amounting to £5,000, are inadequate for the requirements of the Governor-General of Australia, and the Prime Minister should have said a little more than is contained in his minute of the 21st February, 1901, in the way of expressing the dissatisfaction of the Ministry at Mr. Chamberlain’s endeavour to influence their policy in regard to a purely local matter. The character of our GovernorGeneral’s establishment must accord with our ideas of what is fit and necessary, whereas the ideas of Mr. Chamberlain are derived from his knowledge of what is done in the old country, and of the expenditure upon the establishment of the GovernorGeneral of the Dominion of Canada. But, although the Canadian Governor-General receives a salary of 50,000 dollars, and allowances amounting to nearly 30,000 dollars, the Lieutenant -Governors of the eight Provinces of Canada receive salaries which average less than £2,228 per annum, ranging from 10,000 dollars per annum for the LieutenantGovernors of Quebec and Ontario, to 7,000 dollars per annum for the LieutenantGovernor of the north-west territories. In other words, their provincial average is lower than our State minimum. Therefore, taking into account the salaries paid to our State Governors, Australia pays more for establishments of this kind than is paid by Canada, and cannot be regarded as acting in a niggardly fashion in refusing to increase the allowances of her Governor-General. It is very much to be regretted that the Ministry deferred the introduction of the Governor-General’s Establishment Bill until last month, and that they then gave the House no proper indication of what had taken place in reference to the matter. In regard to the statement of the Attorney-General as to the relations of the Governor-General with his Ministers, it is, of course, always understood that Ministers are in complete accord with the Governor-Genera], and as we cannot conceive that- his action was influenced by any personal reason relating to the conduct of the Ministers, we did not expect that the Attorney-General would come down with a certificate from him stating that there had been no dissatisfaction between him and them . We ought to form our opinion upon what we can read in the despatches.

Mr Deakin:

– I did not introduce the matter ; I was practically challenged.

Mr GLYNN:

– No doubt the AttorneyGeneral got permission from His Excellency the Governor-General-

Mr Deakin:

– I did not get any permission. His Excellency stated that if any one of three things were alleged I should do him a favour by contradicting them. One of these matters has been referred to, and only in regard to that have I complied with His Excellency’s request.

Mr GLYNN:

– I can quite quite understand the Governor-General being generous to the Ministry ; but, at the same time, I think it is unwise to introduce any personal expression of opinion on the part of the Governor-General, apart from the despatches which have been exchanged with the Colonial Office. If a reason why the GovernorGeneral did not resign could be put before the House then a reason, if such existed, other than that mentioned in the despatch might just as well be given. Does the Attorney-General for one moment say that it would be well, for instance, to state that among the causes of His Excellency’s resignation was dissatisfaction with his Ministers? Surety honorable members would be justified in the present circumstances in expressing their opinion as to what the real cause was. I did not think the action of the Government was quite in accordance with what ought to be the constitutional practice, and hence my interjection.

Mr. HIGGINS (Northern Melbourne).As I moved the amendment in favour of granting a lump sum to His Excellency the Governor-General instead of giving him an annual allowance, I have followed this discussion with exceptional interest. I must join in the expression of heartfelt regret at the consequences of the refusal of Parliament to pass the Governor-General’s Establishment Bill in the form in which it was introduced. At the same time, I cannot help feeling that it will be a great advantage to have our Commonwealth ideals of expenditure placed on a sound basis. It is well that it should be known in the Colonial-office and elsewhere that we do not desire a royal or quasi-royal establishment to be maintained by the Governor-General. The honorable member for Wentworth blamed the Government for not having placed the despatches which have passed between Mr. Chamberlain and His Excellency the Governor-General before Parliament, and he implied that if those despatches had been presented to us, we might have regarded the Bill with mors favour, and probably have passed it. I feel convinced, however, that if these despatches had been before the Chamber when the Bill was under discussion, even the amended proposal would not have been carried. We adopted what I believe was the right course, because it was felt that His Excellency had been put to a large amount of expense in connexion with the visit paid by the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York, not to him, but to the people of Australia. If the House had had the despatches before it, honorable members would not have gone quite as far as they did go, because the despatches make the position worse than before. In the first place there is the matter which the honorable and learned member for South Australia, Mr. Glynn, has referred to, and I am surprised that this has not received more attention from the Attorney-General. In the concluding part of his despatch Mr. Chamberlain shows an amazing ignorance of the relations of the Colonial Office towards the Governments of States like ours. Not only that, but he shows that he has allowed himself to be influenced in dealing with the Commonwealth by representations made by Ministers of one of the States. He says : -

I shall be glad if you will lay this despatch before your Ministers, and will express to them my hope that they will be able to place these matters on a satisfactory footing when Parliament dissembles.

At this time His Excellency was on the sea coming out to Australia, and evidently no agreement regarding allowances had’ then been entered into. Mr. Chamberlain asks the Governor-General to place a letter before his Ministers and to intimate to them his hope that a certain measure would be carried. I do not think the people of Australia will allow their Ministers to be influenced by the head of the Colonialoffice. The statement I have quoted is one which, when its full force is realized, will lead to a great deal of heart-searching in the Commonwealth.

Sir William McMillan:

– The Secretary of State for the Colonies has the selection of the men who are to fill the office of Governor-General, and if he wants a man of a certain class to be appointed, corresponding provision must be made.

Mr HIGGINS:
NORTHERN MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Neevetherless, we should object to the Colonial Office dictating to Ministers, or even expressing their views to Ministers. Mr. Chamberlain . also observes : -

During the period preceding the establishment of the federal capital, it is intended that the Governor-General should OCCUpY the Government Houses at both Sydney and Melbourne.

Who told Mr. Chamberlain of this 1 It was not the Commonwealth Government,, because it had not been formed at this time. Who told Mr. Chamberlain that the Governor-General was to occupy two residences 1 There was evidently some correspondence between Mr. Chamberlain and the Government of New South Wales, because/Mr. Chamberlain says -

I have already suggested to the Government of New South Wales that until some provision has been made for entertainment allowance, the Governor-General should not be expected to entertain largely at Sydney.

This looks very much as if the Government of New South Wales had been writing to Mr. Chamberlain. What made the Government of New South Wales suggest anything with regard to the Governor-General, who is an officer of the Commonwealth, and not an officer of the New South Wales Government 1 Why should Mr. Chamberlain allow his judgment to be affected by representations made by the Government of any particular State 1 It appears as if the Government of New South Wales had suggested that there must be provision made for the residence of the Governor-General in Sydney, because Mr. Chamberlain says -

I have an assurance that a Bill will be introduced into the New South Wales Parliament to provide the allowance.

This refers to the entertainment allowance. Behind all the talk as to the amount of the allowance there is the more important question of our relation to the Colonialoffice, and I strongly protest against the action of Mr. Chamberlain in directing the Governor-General to inform his Ministers of what he expects them to do. I am glad that the Government made no answer to this despatch. Mr. Chamberlain appears to have been influenced by two false notions as to matters of fact. One of his impressions seems to be that the people of Australia have a vulgar desire to be entertained ; that we have the vulgarity to pay a man a certain amount of money in order that he may spend it upon champagne for us. I do not think that is the prevailing idea of Australians.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Does the honorable and learned member suppose Mr. Chamberlain cares twopence how the Governor entertains t The honorable and learned member is endeavouring to side-track the discussion.

Mr HIGGINS:

- Mr. Chamberlain also says, contrasting Australia with Canada -

The Governor-General of Canada is not in receipt of an entertainment allowance, but there can be little doubt that the expenses of entertainment in Australia will be far heavier that in the case of Canada. Until the new federal capital is built, the Governor-General will, of necessity, have to reside in the great centres of population, in the midst of a large and wealthy society much given to hospitality.

– We point to Mr. Chamberlain’s despatches before we existed.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:

– But something transpired, I take it, before Mr. Chamberlain’s despatches. The Ministry are responsible for everything they did to indorse any view that there ought- to be two establishments. Of course, it could bc nothing more than a view ; nothing had been done by Act, or in any other way, up to the time ‘the Ministers came into office. It was for the Government to say that the idea of two establishments was one which they could not support, and that they would have only one - at the place at which, for the time being, the business of the Commonwealth was being carried on by Parliament. It is incumbent upon us - although it has not to be done now - to show the Commonwealth and the taxpayers, and also the Home authorities, what this Parliament intends to do, and to what extent we shall go in regard to expenditure. I am convinced that the Governor-General will not have cast on him any charge which ought not fairly to be borne out of his official salary of £10,000.

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
South Australia

– It seems to me that what has occurred in this case is largely the result of misconception, and to understand how the misconception arose, something ought to be known of the history of the matter. I do not see why there has been all this reticence, because there is no apparent reason why some explanation should not have been made. The matter originated in New South Wales and with Sir William Lyne. At the time Sir William Lyne was Premier of that

State, and he represented to the Colonialoffice that until a site was selected as a federal capital, the official residence of the Governor-General of the Commonwealth should be in Sydney. Mr. Chamberlain, on receiving this representation, stated that he would offer no objection provided the federating States were agreeable, and that the Federal Administration approved. But Mr. Chamberlain went on to say that it would be impossible for the GovernorGeneral to maintain two establishments, and three when Government House is built at the new capital, unless the States or the Commonwealth provide for the upkeep of the Government Houses in Sydney and in Melbourne, for travelling expenses of the Governor-General and household, and for an entertainment allowance.

Any arrangement which would give any individual State or States special claim to Lord Hopetoun’s presence or services would be open to decided objections.

I should certainly think there could be no question about that. What happened, as the result of the representations made by Sir William Lyne, as Premier of New South Wales, to the Colonial-office ? In the New

– I do not desire to raise the question which has been put forward this afternoon as to whether Sydney or Melbourne is the temporary seat of the Federal Government. It seems to me that the clear intention at the outset was that the Governor-General should take up his residence at Sydney. I do not know what change has taken place, but when Lord Hopetoun proceeded to Sydney to be sworn in and take steps to inaugurate the Commonwealth, it was clearly anticipated that the seat of government was to be there. Of course, the meeting of Parliament, as prescribed by the Constitution, necessitated, as a matter of convenience, that the Governor-General should be resident here while Parliament was in session. But I do not see how it is possible to avoid the up-keep of two Government Houses unless we lay down the hard-and-fast rule that, until the federal capital site is fixed upon, Melbourne shall be regarded as the temporary seat of government, and the GovernorGeneral shall not take up his abode in any other city.

Sir William Lyne:

– But the agreement was that, when Parliament was not sitting, he should take up his abode in Sydney. There can be no doubt about that.

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I think that that was the agreement, and, so far as I know, the Government have not taken up any other position in regard to the matter But it is patent that we cannot afford to keep up expensive and extravagant establishments merely to gratify the pride of the people of Melbourne and Sydney, and the sooner some understanding is arrivedat as to the allowance which Parliament should grant for the up-keep of the two Government Houses and the official expenditure of the Governor-General, the sooner we are likely to obtain a satisfactory settlement of the whole difficulty. The Attorney-General utterly failed to adequately explain the long delay which took place in regard to the introduction of the GovernorGeneral’s Establishment Bill. The Ministry months ago possessed sufficient knowledge of the expenses likely to be incurred to be able to frame the necessary measure, but, although for the first five months of the session we were practically merely marking time, and dealingwith measures which were immature, and could not be passed into law, they did not avail themselves of the opportunity to take the matter in hand. I see no reason to condone their delay. Although I think the House acted rightly in radically amending the Bill when it was introduced, I should be sorry to see the principle laid down that the official expenses of the GovernorGeneral should not be paid by Parliament. The people of Australia do not want the Governor-General to meet his official expenditure out of his salary, but they are not prepared to take upon themselves the burden of providing money for’ expensive entertainments which the great majority of the people cannot, and have no desire to, participate in. Attempts have been made during the debate to introduce a number of side issues, and the honorable and learned member for North Melbourne has dragged in the subject of the temporary seat of Government. Attempts have also been made to throw discredit upon the Secretary of State for the Colonies, though, in my opinion, what he has done has been in the reasonable discharge of the duties of his office. We might well accept his despatches as intimations of the views of the Imperial Government, though it is for us to decide how we shall spend our own money. Parliament has done its duty in that respect, and there is no reason to resent Mr. Chamberlain’s despatches as an interference in our domestic affairs.

SirW illiam Lyne. - Mr. Chamberlain has not interfered at all.

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I do not think that he has. We who represent New South Wales constituencies give the Home Secre tary every credit for the manner in which he acted in regard to the federal-capital question when Premier of that State.I hope that as a member of the Federal Government he will be as firm in upholding the rights, and in protecting the interests, of New South Wales.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I had no intention of taking part in this debate until I heard the speech delivered by the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne, who took the discussion away upon lines entirely different from those it had previously followed. He gave expression to opinions upon aspects of the subject which I do not think were necessarily involved in the debate, and I should be very sorry if, by my silence, I were to be considered as acquiescing in his views. This debate will undoubtedly excite interest far beyond the domain of the Commonwealth, because it will serve as a guide to the class of men who are likely . in the future to offer themselves for the high position of Governor-General of the Commonwealth, and it will be taken, to some extent, as indicating the attitude which members of the Commonwealth Parliament are likely to adopt with regard to the position of GovernorGeneral, and to the duties appertaining to it. My deliberate opinion is that the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne has made an improper use of this debate, because he went out of his way to make an unwarranted attack of an offensive character upon one of the ablest Ministers of the British Crown, and one of Australia’s best friends. The honorable and learned member charged the Secretary of State for the Colonies with interfering in our Australian affairs. A dispassionate view of the circumstances surrounding this question will show, as the honorable member for South Australia has demonstrated, that all the Secretary of State for the Colonies did was in the nature of a fulfilment of his duty as the representative of His Majesty. We must recognise, if it is desired to obtain the very best type of men to fill the position of Governor-General, which is one of the highest in the Empire, we should hold out conditions of office and conditions of life in Australia which will be acceptable to the proudest - I use the word in the highest sense - to the most influential, the most learned and the most accomplished in all constitutional matters. I would ask honorable members to consider the duty of the Secretary of State for the Colonies with regard to the appointment of the Governor-General. If we can place ourselves for a moment in the position of the man who is invited to accept this office, we could not fail to see that one of the first inquiries made of the Colonial Secretary would be as to the conditions under which the Governor-General would be expected to live, and perform the work required of him. Is it not a corollary of the position which Mr. Chamberlain now occupies that he should be able to fully inform any such candidates of the conditions of its occupancy? How could he do this unless he had first made inquiries? Let us consider the circumstances in which the Secretary of State for the Colonies was placed at the time that negotiations were opened up with Lord Hopetoun. We had not then become a Commonwealth, and we had not chosen any seat of Government. The Constitution provided that a definite salary should attach to the position of GovernorGeneral, on the understanding that sooner or later - sooner, if possible - he would be furnished with a home at the seat of Government of the Commonwealth.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– The Constitution stated where the first Parliament would sit.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– No doubt j but it did not state where the Governor-General was to reside. Under these circumstances, the Secretary of State for the’ Colonies was justified in communicating with the Governments of the States. Until the Commonwealth has fixed upon a seat of Government there is no Commonwealth territory in Australia. Notwithstanding that the Governor-General had to come here and take up his residence, and it was perfectly clear that he would have to reside in at least one of the greater capitals, perhaps moving about from one to the other, according to the circumstances of the political sstuation. That view is confirmed by the speech which was delivered in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly by Sir William Lyne, in introducing the Bill providing for a grant of £3,000 towards the maintenance of the Governor-General’s establishment. He then informed the House that he was doing his utmost to fix the residence of the GovernorGeneral in New South Wales. This was very laudable from a New South Wales stand-point, but no doubt there were many public men in Victoria who were equally anxious that the Governor-General should take up his residence in Melbourne. It would have been impossible for the Governor-General to live at any one place permanently year, after year, pending the establishment of the federal capital. This being the case, the Secretary of State for the Colonies could do nothing but communicate with the State Premiers, in order to ascertain what they proposed to do to enable the Governor-General to reside in their respective States. Therefore the charge of interference which the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne makes against the Secretary of

– But the GovernorGeneral, prior to starting for Australia, must have had interviews with the Colonial Secretary, and have asked a number of questions of the kind. Does the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne imagine that either Mr. Chamberlain or the Governor-General was personally anxious about the giving of these entertainments ? I should say rather that the Colonial Secretary understood the proclivities of the Australian people, and was aware that sometimes an unfortunate Governor had to shake hands on a hot summer’s day with 4,000 perspiring people at an afternoon tea. It is not the proposal of the Colonial Secretary that these entertainments should take place, but that he knows the weakness of the Australian people for such social entertainments, and that they will expect them.

Honorable Members. - No.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not say that honorable members do, but it must be admitted that the bulk of the people who attend these functions expect them. Probably 5,000 people are invited, and 4,500 people accept ; but if 100,000 people were invited, they would probably attend. No one supposes for a moment that Mr. Chamberlain is guilty of “vulgarity” in referring to these entertainments, or that the Governor-General is anxious to go through the ordeal which they involve. We may depend, however, that Mr. Chamberlain is as well versed as we are in Australian affairs of the most minute character, and that he was merely making inquiries on behalf of the Governor-General as to what would be expected of him. Was the Governor-General, under these abnormal circumstances, to entertain in Melbourne, in Sydney, and possibly in Adelaide? If Mr. Chamberlain was making these inquiries legitimately on behalf of the Governor-General, who was quite entitled to understand his position, why should he be attacked by the honorable and learned member foi- Northern Melbourne as having introduced “abundance of vulgarity “ into his despatch, and as being guilty of ignorance of Australian conditions ? The honorable and learned member has gone out of his way in this matter, and it is not difficult for those who know his views on certain questions to -account for what he said. It is perfectly clear that the honorable and learned member was merely letting off his spleen, with regard to other questions, on the gentleman who occupies this high position, and I for one protest against his utterances as an expression of opinion on the part of members of this House.

Mr Ronald:

– And the honorable and learned member for Parkes is letting off his spleen on the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I know that the honorable member for Southern Melbourne entertains views similar to those held by the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne, but this is a most inopportune time to attempt by opinions of that sort to influence the House, the question under discussion being one of an entirely different nature. The question now is, whether the Government have behaved in a judicious and proper manner in the negotiations with the Governor-General, or whether they are blameable for the crisis which has taken place. On the general question, I will admit that it is a question of “ spilt milk.” I understand, from all we have heard, that it is quite impossible that what has happened can be altered. As a looker on, I add my testimony to the general feeling throughout Australia that the whole difficulty could have been averted by a little more diplomatic ability on the part of the Government. The whole crisis is the result of a piece of clumsy administration. The Prime Minister, having these documents in his possesssion as far back as February, 1901, should have earlier brought’ the matter forward. I do not for a moment say that the House would have agreed to a measure to give additional money as a permanent payment to future Governors-General, and I myself should have hesitated to do so. We have no power to atempt to break through a definite provision which is laid down in the Constitution ; but I believe that if this question had come before this House, and honorable members had had a full knowledge of all this correspondence, the debate would probably have been adjourned, and some arrangement made acceptable to the Governor-General, until the Commonwealth had settled on some seat of Government, and thus removed the necessity for extra expenditure. But the whole matter was put off. Everybody who knows the Prime Minister knows that amongst the little weaknesses of his character is that of procrastination. I have no doubt that it was intended by him long ago to introduce the measure to the House, and put us in possession of all the information he had at his command ; but the question was postponed, and just on the eve of the Prime Minister’s departure for England, the measure was introduced in a rapid and spasmodic manner. No information was given to the House, and honorable members were practically led to believe that it was a sudden proposal to do something absolutely contrary to the Constitution. I say candidly that in my present state of mind, even with all the information before me,I should hesitate on constitutional grounds to indorse a measure which fixed the GovernorGeneral’s salary permanently at a larger sum than is provided in the Constitution. But I am sure that with a little more expedition and diplomacy the Prime Minister could have arranged matters so as to have averted what I have no hesitation in calling a catastrophe. It is not merely the loss of so high an official as Lord Hopetoun. The bald fact has gone forth to the world, without reservation or qualification, that Australia has refused to meet the abnormal expenses of her GovernorGeneral in the earliest stages of her history.

Mr Ronald:

– That is not true.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It is not a question of truth or untruth. The world moves so rapidly that all the details of an affair of this sort do not reach the ears which first learn the bald fact. If anybody could question the people of England, we should be told - “ All we know is that Australia has refused to compensate the GovernorGeneral for the extra expenditure he incurred in an abnormal year of hisoffice.” That is a catastrophe, because, by-and-by, when we find men of the same high class as Lord Hopetoun hesitating to accept the position, we shall realize more than at present what we have suffered, not from the refusal of the House to pass the Bill - because it was improper to submit a Bill to permanently increase the salary - but from the clumsy administration of theGovernment in not introducing a measure at an earlier stage and treating it as a temporary matter. Such a Bill would have satisfied the Governor-General and secured to us the continued services of a highly accomplished man and statesman.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

– Like the honorable and learned member for Parkes, I have no sympathy with any personal attack which has been made on the Secretary of State for the Colonies. At the same time we have a perfect right to criticise the terms of the despatches on the subject now before us. Too much prominence, however, has been given by the honorable and learned member for Parkes to the speech delivered by the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne, and that rather tends to divert attention from the main issue. The question is whether the acting leader of the Opposition has sustained his position, namely, that the Ministry have been guilty of a breach of faith with the Governor-General, and that that breach of faith has led to the resignation of His Excellency. I have listened to the debate very carefully, and I feel constrained to arrive at the conclusion that there is no ground whatever for either of these allegations. I do not see what could have been expected from the Ministry more than they have done. It has been suggested that they ought to have made this Bill a Ministerial question, and staked their Ministerial existence on it. But that would have been much worse than a crime ; it would have been a blunder of a most serious character to assume such an attitude. I feel sure that no representative of the Crown could expect that a responsible Ministry would take such an obligation. All that is undertaken by the Prime Minister’s minute of the 21st February, 1901, is that the Ministry would submit a measure to Parliament which in their view would meet the situation to which Mr. Chamberlain’s despatch refers. The Government were under no obligation to submit this Bill to Parliament at once, to the supersession of every other matter of public business. Surely responsible Ministers could select a suitable occasion, and they were under no necessity to submit the Bill immediately Parliament met. I have no reason to doubt that, ifthe Bill had been submitted then, it would have met the same fate that it met eventually ; and had that occurred it would have been a still greater catastrophe. The question of the establishment of the Governor-General ought not to have been forced on Ministers as a matter of federal policy. As ft matter of courtesy they listened to the representations of Mr. Chamberlain conveyed to them through the Governor-General, and they undertook to submit proposals to Parliament. The only mistake I can see that Ministers made was in undertaking to submit to Parliament the suggestions of the Secretary of State.

Mr Deakin:

– Remember the New South Wales Act.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I know about that Act, which does not interfere with what I am now submitting, namely, that although as a matter of courtesy it would be difficult to refuse, still I do not think that the

Ministry ought to have absolutely undertaken the responsibility of submitting Mr. Chamberlain’s proposals to Parliament. “What do these proposals embody? So far as the up-keep is concerned, there is no doubt provision would have been made. What the despatch proposes in the first place, is that provision shall be made for the maintenance of the personal staff, as well as for the expenses of entertainment. These were two definite proposals by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in regard to the acceptance of which by the Federal Parliament the Government might well have had some apprehensions.

Mr Deakin:

– The New South Wales Parliament had voted £3,300 for those purposes.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– The New South Wales Parliament might have gone on voting money until Doomsday. They were under no obligation to do so, and certainly no vote which they passed can force the hands of the Federal Parliament. I venture to say that it would be very difficult indeed to induce any Federal Parliament to make provision, not only for the maintenance of the Governor-General’s staff, consisting of a private and military secretary, an aide-de-camp, and so forth, but for the expenses of entertainment. This appears to be one of the first occasions in the history of the negotiations between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and colonial Governments in which it has been urged that provision should be made for entertainment. It seems somewhat strange that the Secretary of State for the Colonies should bother himself about the discussion of such a question. As intended by the Constitution, the position of the Governor-General of Australia should be considered to be that of an exalted Imperial officer presiding over the political administration and the destinies of Australia as the representative of the King. It ought not to be considered for a moment that he is merely the President of an entertaining establishment. It is deeply to be regretted that any idea should he entertained either by the Secretary of, State for the Colonies, or by any person in high office that the Governor-General in Australia is expected to extend enormous entertainments or hospitalities. It would be a good thing for Australia and for society generally if the idea of such obligations on the part of the representative of the Crown were knocked on the head once and for all. The craving for hospitality cannot fail to be regarded as one of the curses of society, and I do not see why the King’s representative in Australia, occupying a position unique, exalted, and certainly important in the highest degree, should be bothered and pestered about entertainments and hospitalities. It is regrettable that this despatch, although quite within the rights of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, should have been devoted so largely to a discussion of the question of entertainment.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Does the honorable and learned member think that the Secretary of State for the Colonies took that action of his own motion ?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I do not know, but it is to be regretted that the early despatches between the Colonial Office and the Australian Commonwealth should be burdened with the question of entertainments and hospitalities to such an extent. Such a subject can hardly be regarded as a matter of grave Ministerial responsibility. As a matter of courtesy, probably, Ministers went out of their way to give the promise to which reference has been made, but they were under no obligation to undertake to submit the Governor-General’s Establishment Bill to Parliament The Constitution makes provision for the salary of . the GovernorGeneral ; and although it does not provide for a Government House, it was well understood from the first that a Government House would be provided and maintained at the expense of the Commonwealth.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– The Victorian Government House had. been placed at the disposal of the Crown before the date of those despatches.

Sir William Lyne:

– And so had the Government House at Sydney.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– Yes : there was an abundance of accommodation so far, as Government House requirements were concerned. It was accepted as an understood thing that the Governor-General would not be put to any expense in maintaining Government Houses. Beyond that fact, the representative of the Crown in coming to Australia was not justified in entertaining any expectation that anything in the shape of special allowances would be added to the salary provided by the Constitution. Allowances could be utilized by Ministers as a method of evading the constitutional provision that the salary of the Governor-General sholl not be diminished, altered, or increased during the continuance of the GovernorGeneral’s term of office. Although I think that Ministers made a mistake in giving the promise recorded in the Prime Minister’s minute, I believe that they did all that they possibly could, as reasonable and honorable’ men, to give effect to that promise. The mere lapse of time which took place in the introduction of the Bill should not be urged against them as evidence of breach, of faith. I certainly think that the acting leader of the Opposition was not justified in making the serious statement that that alleged breach of compact was the cause of the Governor-General’s resignation, and that His Excellency was disgusted with the Ministry. Such a statement is quite unwarranted, and should not have been persisted in. Any doubt on the subject has been removed by the- assurance of the Attorney-General, lt is time to enter a protest against the impression which has gone abroad that the action of this Parliament in regard to the Governor-General’s Establishment Bill was founded upon parsimonious considerations. Such a suggestion ought to be resented. The action of the House of Representatives in rejecting the Bill as introduced by the Government was not founded upon any desire to treat the Governor-General in an illiberal manner ; our desire was that he should be treated in a manner consistent with the duties of his office. It has been mentioned that in addition to the salary of £10,000 provided for him under the Constitution, the Governor.General of Canada receives allowances to the extent of about £8,000 per annum. I wish to point out that the Federal Government of Australia has not only made provision for a Government House, but that in the Estimates now before us provision has been made for the upkeep of two Government Houses on a very large and liberal scale. I wish to draw attention to the figures which appear in the Budget papers presented to the House by the Treasurer. They show that the Federal Government has not been illiberal in dealing with the Governor-General’s establishment. For instance, the Estimates contain provision for a Government House in New South “Wales as follows : -

Repairs and maintenance to Government Houses, New South Wales, ±’2,500; furniture and fittings, ,-6550 ; telephones, ±’88 ; electric light, £500 ; total, £3,038.

36 7. 2

The following provision is made on the Estimates for the Victorian Government House : -

Repairs and maintenance, £2,000; furniture and fittings, ±”900 ; light, £942 ; telephone, £50 ; total, £3,892.

The grand total for the two Government Houses, including provision for lighting and telephones is £7,530. In addition to that amount, provision is also made on the Estimates for £2,000 in respect of official printing, stationery, telegrams, and other etceteras in connexion with the Governor-General’s office. That gives a total of nearly £10,000 for the maintenance of the GovernorGeneral’s establishments, and incidental expenses, in addition to the salary of £10,000 per annum, bringing the total expenses of the Governor-General, for which provision is proposed to be made, to nearly £20,000 a year. In addition to that, it was sought to provide a further sum of £S,000 per annum, making altogether an expenditure of £28,000 upon the GovernorGeneral’s establishment. Whilst I, in common with other honorable members, have the most profound respect for thepresent occupant of the office, I think that an expenditure such as that would be too monstrous to entertain for a moment. Whilst desiring to maintain the dignity of the office, we must endeavour to keep the expenditure within reasonable and moderate limits, and certainly we are bound to give effect to the general feeling that Government House should not be converted into a huge hospitality establishment. I think that on the whole the provision made by the Constitution and on the Estimates is ample, and that the Federal Government have not been guilty of any breach of faith. They have done all they possibly can in the matter. They were under no obligation to make this a Ministerial question ; their only undertaking was to place the Governor-General’s Establishment Bill before the House, leaving honorable members to exercise their judgment in reference to it. In regard to Mr. Barton’s minute . of the 21st February, 1901, I think that Parliament will feel bound to honour all the accounts in respect of expenses incurred by the Governor-General, in connexion with the maintenance of his establishment, while under the impression that the vote in question would be carried. In that way the Governor-General will not lose a single penny on account of any outlay so incurred. It is purely in the exercise of his own discretion and judgment that he has decided to relinquish his position. If the Bill had been introduced twelve months ago and had met with a fate similar to that which it suffered a few weeks ago, the Governor-General, if in the same mind then as he is now, would have relinquished his position at once. The delay which took place in the introduction of the Bill has given us the advantage of his continuance in an office which he has graced and honoured not only as a representative of the King in Australia, but as one of the most popular Governors who has ever held office in this country.

Mr JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta).Listening to the debate which has taken place to-night and particularly to the speech made by the Attorney-General, one is led to wonder what is the reason for all the trouble that has taken place. Indeed one always feels like that after listening to any statement made in the House by the AttorneyGeneral. No one could have made a statement more favourable to the Government than that made by him to-day. He did his best to show that the Government had acted in a most candid way throughout ; and he said that the Governor-General had requested him to assure the House that it was not in consequence of anything that had taken place here that he proposed to relinquish his office. Yet we have the broad fact before us that the Governor-General is about to leave Australia j that he declares that he is disappointed with what has taken place here, and on that account declines to be Governor-General any longer. That is the ugly fact which the Attorney-General’s explanation is unable to sweep away. All that has been said to-night must be considered with due regard to these facts. In the face of them it is idle for the honorable and learned gentleman to say that the Governor-General absolves the Government entirely in regard to anything which has taken place, and that he is resigning without reason. What is the reason for his resignation? The Attorney-General has told us that the Governor-General asked to be recalled because we will not find him sufficient money to carry out his ideas as to his social obligations. But have not Ministers known the temper of the House for the last sixteen months ? Why, then, did they let the Governor-General go on spending in lavish fashion 1 But the Attorney-General further told us that he believes that the provisions of the Governor-General’s Establishment Bill were reasonable and economical in the extreme. Yet the Government declined to take an atom of responsibility in regard to that measure. Let us see what was the reception of Mr. Chamberlain’s correspondence by the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State for the Colonies would not have troubled himself about the entertaining of the people of Australia, or the upkeep of Government Houses here, if some one had not brought the matter under his attention, and what more natural than that Lord Hopetoun should have discussed it with him, after or in connexion with his appointment. At any rate, it must have been in consequence of representations made to him that Mr. Chamberlain wrote the despatches which have been laid before the House. He points out that much larger sums are allowed for the establishments of the Lord-Lieut, of Ireland, the Viceroy of India, and the Governor-General of Canada than it was proposed to allow our Governor-General. His despatches were forwarded by Lord Hopetoun to the Prime Minister, and upon receiving them the Prime Minister gave what I say was a direct undertaking that the view of the situation put by Mr. Chamberlain would be met. The Prime Minister, in acknowledging the receipt of a copy of Mr. Chamberlain’s despatch of 11th January -

Mr THOMSON:

– Under those circumstances I suppose the right honorable gentleman considers that he is for sale or hire to the Commonwealth, because the people of the Commonwealth generally have contributed to the cost of his presence here. It is an unfortunate circumstance that Lord Hopetoun has seen fit to resign. We recognise that as the Governor of Victoria he earned the respect, and, what is more, the confidence of that State ; we know that ‘that confidence extended to people beyond the limits of Victoria, and that the authorities in the mother land repose in him the same high confidence. He came here with an enthusiastic desire apparently to be the GovernorGeneral oE the Commonwealth for the full term of his office, and with, that enthusiastic desire to do all that he could in its interests which is one of the qualities that we most admire in him. That the GovernorGeneral, with all his enthusiasm, should find it necessary to resign, must appear to many people as a reflection upon the Commonwealth, the Parliament, or the Ministry. Is there any justification for such a reflection? So far as the Commonwealth is concerned there is not. The Commonwealth has not failed to fulfil ‘anything which it undertook. When the GovernorGeneral started for Australia, the undertaking was simply the payment of a salary of £10,000 per annum, and, if he was aware of it, there was also a suggestion by the Secretary of State for the Colonies that something more than what had hitherto been the usual allowances should be made in addition -to that salary. That, however, was only a suggestion, and its acceptance could not be guaranteed. To my mind the presumption is that the Governor-General came here risking the acceptance or nonacceptance of that suggestion, and that even if these allowances had not been granted, he would have remained but for some circumstance which we have not yet been able to discover. Whilst there can be no reflection upon the Commonwealth, there certainly cannot be any reflection upon the Parliament. This House acted perfectly freely. Without any bond or bargain, it decided upon what it thought to be for the best interests of Australia. But there is a justifiable reflection upon the Ministry in regard to the way in which they have managed the whole business. I am not going to dwell upon the point, because the Government have already been freely criticised, but the fact that they are to blame can be clearly shown. In Mr. Chamberlain’s first despatch of 30th November, 1900, he writes -

It is, therefore, impossible to entertain the question of a change in salary proper during your term -

That is, owing to the Constitution -

But it will be necessary for the Parliament to consider at an early date what provision shall be made for the Governor-General’s establishment and for the expenses of entertainment.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies pointed out at the time that it would be necessary for the Parliament at an early date to deal with this question. That was a very proper appreciation of the circumstances. Was the Governor-General to enter upon the outlay of the Royal visit and the full expenditure of his office without knowing what his allowance would be ? The .Prime Minister replied, practically accepting the representations of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He said -

Mr. Barton begs to intimate that the Ministers for the Commonwealth have agreed to submit a measure to the Parliament . which, in his view, will meet the situation to which Mr. Secretary Chamberlain’s despatch refers.

One of the points of the situation was stated very properly by Mr. Chamberlain, namely, that the measure should be introduced at an early date. I agree with the honorable and learned member for Bendigo that the Ministry acted foolishly in agreeing to bring the Bill before Parliament. They should have known that there were very grave possibilities that it would not be accepted. It would have been much better if they had said that the matter would receive consideration, with a view to meet the situation .to which Mr. Chamberlain’s despatch refers. That would have been quite sufficient, and would not have committed the Ministry to a course which must necessarily have been painful to the Governor-General. If the Ministry had not promised to bring the matter before Parliament, they would not have felt bound todo so until they could - judge what the result would be, and it is possible that if the Governor-General had been told that there was no chance of Parliament passing the measure, he might have accepted the situation, as he seemed prepared to accept it when he left Great Britain, and might not have thought it necessary to resign. But, as the Attorney-General has stated, one reason for refusing now to remain is that, if he did stay, it would be thought that he had made an attempt to get an allowance which was not absolutely necessary, and, having failed, was quite satisfied to continue on under the old terms. That situation would not have arisen if the opinion of Parliament had been tested beforehand, and it had been discovered if the measure had any chance of passing. I think, too, that after the House had dealt with the Governor-General’s Establishment Bill, the Ministry made a mistake in assuming that honorable members would not agree to the payment by the Commonwealth of any of the items mentioned by the Prime Minister as covered by the proposed vote of £8,000. No doubt each member had his own opinion upon- the subject, but no general opinion to that effect was expressed by the House. Certain allowances have been paid all along. The Government provide for the up-keep of the two Government Houses, the care of the grounds, the lighting, and the maintenance and repair of furniture. What the House was determined upon was that there should be no further allowance to cover expenses of entertainment; but it was,- doubtless, the opinion of honorable gentlemen that, the Bill having been rejected, the original arrangements as to allowances would be reverted to, and that the expense of lighting would also be met by the Commonwealth. But, because the expense of lighting was one of the things mentioned by the Prime

Minister, the Ministry seem to have considered that in the future it must be borne by the Governor-General himself. It has been given as a reason why the allowances of the Governor-General should be increased, that the Governor-General of Canada receives, in salary and allowances, a much larger amount than we pay. No doubt the position of the Governor-General of Canada is the most closely analogous to that of the Governor-General of Australia, though the population of Canada is much larger than that of Australia, and consequently an equal expenditure of this kind would be much less per head of population. I find, however, upon an examination of the figures, that if the expense of lighting were allowed to our GovernorGeneral, the difference between what he has to pay out of his own salary and what the Governor - General of Canada has to pay out of his salary would be only about £1,900. The salary of the GovernorGeneral of Canada is 48,535 dollars, or practically £10,000, and the Government pays 3,000 dollars to an aide-de-camp, 3,000 dollars to a military secretary, and 2,400 dollars to a private secretary. There are other clerks and orderlies, but the clerks evidently perform duties similar to those performed by the staff attached to our Executive Council, there being three male clerks and three female clerks, or else they are engaged in connexion with work which is not performed in the establishment of the Governor-General here. But whereas the aide-de-camp and military and private secretaries of the Governor-General of Canada are paid by the Government, our Governor-General has to provide £600 for a private secretary, £500 for a military secretary, and £300 for an aide-de-camp. Furthermore, he has to pay, according to the Prime Minister, about £500 for fuel, which, in Canada is provided by the Government, so that altogether his net salary is £1,900 less than that of the Governor-General of Canada. I have not made these comparisons in relation to what is past. I regret what has happened, but it is past and done with, and if the Governor-General’s Establishment Bil]* were again before the House I should have to vote as I did on the previous occasion. But I hope .that careful consideration will be given to the question of allowances in regard to the establishment of future Governors-General, so that all uncertainty in the matter may be removed. It will have to be recognised that the union of the States has created new conditions. While the Governor of a State may be able, if he is willing, to extend considerable hospitality towards the people of that State, it is impossible for the Governor-General of the Commonwealth to extend similar hospitality to the people of six States. If he entertains the people of only one or two States, the people of the other States will feel some jealousy.

Mr Fowler:

– Especially as they have to provide their share of the expense.

Mr THOMSON:

– Yes, without obtaining any of the so-called benefits. If the Governor-General had to extend his hospitality to the people of all the State3, it would be beyond the power of any man of even large means to discharge the duties of the position, and if the Government were called upon to find the money, I think nearly £100,000 per annum would be required. We must face the situation as it has been faced in Canada. I have been told by Canadians that the Governors-General of Canada, with the exception of one or two who were able and desired to be lavish, confine themselves to official entertainments. Mr. Chamberlain, in his despatch of 11th January, writes -

From the point of view of public interest, I consider it important that you should limit your hospitality in capitals other than Sydney -

The Parliament of New South Wales, having passed an Act providing for an annual contribution of about £3,000 towards the expenses of the Governor-General’s residence at Sydney -

Strictly to such official entertainment as you may consider to be necessarily demanded.

I think that under our new conditions it must be recognised by future GovernorsGeneral that anything beyond official entertainments - or, perhaps, upon such national occasions as the recent Royal visit, something more lavish, which may afterwards be provided for by Parliament - cannot be undertaken. It must be remembered that each State has a Governor of its own, and its Parliament can pay to that Governor any amount it chooses for as extensive entertainment as is wished for. If the principle which I have laid down is recognised, the Commonwealth will not in the future be deprived of the services of able men. We have provided a salary of £10,000, and although we decline to give allowances to meet the expense of entertaining, I think that honorable members will take a sufficiently liberal view as to what should be contributed by the Government towards the upkeep of the Government Houses and the general expenses of the Governor-General’s establishment.

Mr MACDONALD-PATERSON:
Brisbane

– As I am suffering from the Melbourne throat, which attacks most Queenslanders from time to time, I hope honorable members will excuse my inability to do justice to this subject, which has been so well debated. The great majority of the people of Queensland, of every shade of opinion, and in every position of, life, deeply deplore the circumstances which have brought about the retirement of the Governor-General. Judging from my correspondence, both by letter and telegram, the people of Queensland unanimously deplore the decision of the Governor-General to retire from his office, and also the circumstances which have brought it about. The caucus is one of the most valuable institutions in political life in all countries, and yet it has been entirely abandoned by the present Ministry. Not one caucus of Ministerial supporters has been held since Parliament met twelve months ago, and I was never more astonished in my life than when the Governor-General’s Establishment Bill was introduced. Was it to be expected that any honorable member could digest a matter of such vast importance without having some reasonable time in which to consider it ? When I had recovered to some extent from my surprise I spoke to the Prime Minister, and he gave me a reply that fairly staggered me, namely, that a private honorable member sitting on the Government beaches would probably make a suggestion that would please honorable members. No attempt was made to rally the Government forces in favour of the Bill, and no opportunities were afforded for a consultation with honorable members on the other side of the Chamber who might be disposed to favour some such proposal as that made by the Government. Personally, I was in favour of making a reasonable allowance and expected some such provision to be made, but I did not think we should be justified in providing an allowance of £8,000 per annum for a term of six or more years. In any case I should have restricted the allowance to the present Governor-General’s term of office. His Excellency now finds himself in the position of having to pay the whole of his staff out of his own salary. Section 3 of the Constitution Act provides -

There shall be payable to the Queen out of the consolidated revenue of the Commonwealth for the salary of the Governor-General an annual sum, which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall be £10,000.

– One reason was the unwarrantable precipitancy of the action of the Government, and I endeavour as far as possible to devote my limited talents to matters of which I have some knowledge. The Governor-General came here under the most splendid auspices in full favour with the Royal Family. He had had much experience in the performance of the most delicate duties that could fall to the lot of man in any great family in the world. He had had experience of Australian life, in Victoria principally, and was held in high esteem by every man and woman in the State. He came back with a high reputation, and no one can say that up to the present time he has not fulfilled his duties well. If he has “ shaken out his dollars “ and cast the sovereigns abroad, why has he done so 1 Primarily from a strong feeling of loyalty, and with a high conception of the duties and functions of his position. He was the first Governor-General of what we have been pleased to call a new nation, which is full of the wealth of the “ golden fleece,” and can boast of a shipping trade representing millions of tons per annum. These observations simply represent the idea which people in Canada, America, and elsewhere have of Australia ; and yet all this trouble has arisen in connexion with a sum of money which, under proper arrangements, might have represented not more than £5,000 per annum, or £30,000 for the whole term of office, including the £10,000 already granted for the expenses of the Royal visit. There is no doubt that every newspaper in the United Kingdom, to go no further, has published the fact of our scant supply of funds for the successful performance of the functions of the GovernorGeneral. If only the bare salary of £10,000 had to be paid to the Governor-General, why was that not set forth in the Constitution ? Lord Hopetoun has always been a man in every sense of the word, and so were all his predecessors. His uncle was one of the first pioneers in agriculture in Queensland. He promoted the employment of labour there; and, as the result of his experience in other tropical countries, he was able to educate the people of that State to utilize their land in the growth of pine-apples, bananas, sugar-cane, and other products. I wish to say, in conclusion, that nothing has happened in our history - and I have been here since a boy - which has so discouraged me as this political blot upon the escutcheon of my adopted country - the Commonwealth of Australia.

Mr SPENCE:
Darling

– I feel that honorable members are fairly tired of the discussion upon the loss of Lord Hopetoun. It appears to me that the GovernorGeneral has undoubtedly been misled by some one, but it is difficult to determine who is responsible. The arrangement of the duties of the Governor-General must have been carried out in the Colonial Office, and it is most likely that he was -misled there. I must say, however, that I think that the Government do not figure too well in regard to the question of allowances. As we have now to determine the conditions under which the new Governor-General will be expected to perform his duties, this discussion will be important as showing that honorable members are opposed to the view that the entertainment of those who call themselves “society people” is necessarily apart of the Governor-General’s duties. I am opposed to any increase being made in the salary of £10,000 per annum provided by the Constitution. It seems to me that the Colonial Office should have remembered its experience with Canada. At the end of their first session, on the 22nd May, 1868, the Canadian Parliament, having the right to deal with the Governor-General’s salary, which had been fixed at £10,000 until Parliament otherwise provided, resolved not to increase it, but to reduce it to £6,500. That was an expression of opinion by people who had federated under conditions similar to our own. We know that the Bill to provide for that reduction was vetoed, and what may be called a minimum wage for a Governor-General was fixed at £10,000 pel’ annum. I think that sum is sufficient for the Governor-General of the Commonwealth, and I am strongly opposed to the taxation of the people of this sun-baked continent - thousands of whom have to struggle to obtain a crust - in order to provide funds for the entertainment of a number of people at Government House. If we are going to spend £8,000 a year, or any other sum, on entertainments, let us provide free theatres, or some other form of genuine amusement for the people. That would be a very much better way of spending the money than in providing for functions which do not elevate the people. It has always struck me that the worst possible thing for an intelligent man to be called upon to ‘do is to stand up and allow his hand to be shaken, like a pump handle, by people who care nothing for him, but desire simply to gratify their vanity and say that they have shaken hands with the Governor-General. It creates bad feeling amongst neighbours, and does no good. I need hardly discuss principles of political economy with the honorable and learned member for Brisbane, who thinks that it is a good thing to spend money in any way. If no good is achieved by its expenditure it is altogether wasted and lost. The hoaorable and learned member may be considered a representative of capitalism to a greater extent than I am, and it is singular to find him advocating a waste of money in this direction. To put a number of people into costly dresses which, in some cases, other people have had to pay for, is not the kind of thing to advocate in any Parliament. I do not think that honorable members will vote a penny for entertainments at Government House. It will be the duty of the Government in bringing forward the proposals that they have promised, providing for legitimate allowances for the upkeep of quarters for the Governor-General, to see that the matter is dealt with in time, so that the .Colonial Office may know exactly what we desire. We should lay it down as a principle that the Governor-General is not bound to entertain any one, unless he desires to do so at his own expense. We might follow the precedent quoted by the honorable member for North Sydney. If we do that the next Governor-General will come here under no misapprehension”, and we shall not have a repetition of the resignation of the Governor-General under circumstances which do not appear to be very creditable to some one. I do not know that it matters very much, although we regret that the incident has occurred, and it is unfortunate that Lord Hopetoun should have been misled. I do not think that the honorable member for Parramatta need fear that the Government will ever introduce another Bill to raise the Governor-General’s salary. The feeling of the House is evidently very strong against any waste of public money. The people of the Commonwealth have quite enough to do at the present time in the matter of maintaining Governments. We do not desire to have any wasteful expenditure, and I think we have seen the last of any attempt in this direction.

Mr. SYDNEY SMITH (Macquarie).I do not wish at this late hour to take up the time of the committee at any great length, but I cannot allow the discussion to close without making some reference to the speech delivered by the honorable and learned member for Brisbane. He pointed out that the Government were to blame for having failed to take their supporters into their confidence. He said that we were called upon suddenly to come to a determination upon an important matter, and that because of that fact he was forced to vote for the Government. He did so although he admits that he did not understand the circumstances surrounding the Government proposal ; and yet he blames other honorable members who’ voted against it. I cannot understand the honorable and learned member’s inconsistency.

Mr McDONALD:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

-paterson. - The Government should also have taken the Opposition into their confidence.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I do not know anything .about that. In reply to my honorable and learned friend, I say that the Government knew that it was impossible to carry the Bill. They were assured by their own whip, as well as by myself, that it was impossible to do so. If honorable members had been allowed to vote upon the merits of the measure as introduced by the Government, without any further explanation than that offered by the Prime Minister, I do not think that half-a-dozen of those sitting behind the Ministry would have supported it.

Mr O’Malley:

– Just one.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I was told that there would be one.

Mr Poynton:

– The Government whip.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I do not wish to particularize. I went through the list, and I put down the names of six members who would have supported the Government if the principle of the Bill had been adhered to. The Government, however, did not adhere to it. The objection which the Opposition entertained toward the measure was that it was contrary to the spirit and intention of the Constitution. Mr. Chamberlain, in the correspondence which has now been presented for the first time, really admitted that to be the case, because he said -

Under the terms of the Constitution as fixed l>3’ the Commonwealth Act a salary of £10,000 is to be paid to the Governor-General, and it is provided that the salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his continuance in office.

The Government, without taking the House into its confidence, sought to increase the Governor-General’s salary ; but honorable members were of opinion that it would be contrary to the- spirit of the Constitution to do so. I blame the Government for having failed to take honorable members into their confidence by laying all this correspondence before them. They have had it in their possession since the beginning of 1901, but they have put it before the House now for the first time. I regret that during this debate some reference has been made to Sydney as if the people of that city had asked Parliament to pay the cost of maintaining Government House there for the use of the Governor-General. What did the Parliament of New South Wales do in the matter, and why did they do it ? I shall ask the Treasurer why he proposed the Bill which was rejected by the Victorian Parliament 1 Sir William Lyne, as Premier of New South Wales, submitted a similar Bill for the consideration of the State Parliament. He did not make a lengthy explanation, because the Bill was submitted, I understand, after a long sitting. The Government should have taken Parliament into its confidence, and placed before us, not only Mr. Chamberlain’s despatches to the Governor-General, but also the correspondence between Mr. Chamberlain and the various State Governments.

Mr Deakin:

– We have not seen it.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– The honorable member’s colleagues know something about it. The Treasurer, when Premier of Victoria, received a cablegram from Mr. Chamberlain, asking him to introduce into the Victorian Parliament a measure to provide a certain sum to supplement the GovernorGeneral’s salary. Mr. F. B. Suttor, who at the time, was a colleague of the Minister for Home Affairs in the New South Wales Governnent, when introducing a Bill to the same effect, which subsequently became law, said -

A good deal of correspondence has passed between the Colonial-office in England and this Government respecting the position of the GovernorGeneral as regards the colonies, and it has been pointed out that, although the Commonwealth Act provides that the salary of the GovernorGeneral shall be £10,000, if the Governments expect the Governor-General to move from one place to another and to visit the different colonies, a further sum will be necessary to meet the increased expenses to which the Governor-General would necessarily be put.

He said, further, that -

This Bill is brought in practically in pursuance of an agreement come to between the Home Government and the Government of this county.

The Bill was passed without division on the 4th December, 1900. Although honorable members opposite have tried to show the grasping nature of ‘New South Wales, that State recognised her responsibility in this matter, and actually passed an Act, which is the law to-day, appropriating over £3,000 per annum for the expense of the GovernorGeneral’s establishment in Sydney.

Mr Poynton:

– Conditionally on the other States making up the balance.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– The New South Wales Act was passed unconditionally, and the Government of the day said that they were prepared to find the money whether the other State Governments subscribed or not, though Mr. Chamberlain was of opinion that £10,000 should be subscribed by all the States in proportion to population.

Mr Poynton:

– At any rate, New South Wales has never paid the money ?

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I am assured by the Attorney-General that no request has been made to the Government of that State for it, and therefore no refusal can have been received from them. New South Wales has not asked for any consideration from this Parliament to which she is not entitled.

Mr Poynton:

– The whole trouble is due to her interference in the matter.

Mir. SYDNEY SMITH. - Why should not the Governor-General reside in New South Wales?

Mr Poynton:

– There is no reason why he should reside there more than in any of the other States. 37 a«

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– The seat of Government is in New South. Wales.

Mr Poynton:

– No, it is in Melbourne.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– The Constitution says that the seat of Government shall be in New South Wales, but that until the capital site is agreed upon Parliament shall meet in Melbourne.

Mr Ronald:

– The common-sense interpretation of that provision is that the seat of Government shall be where the Parliament sits.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I do not accept my honorable friend’s interpretation. I voted against the Governor-General’s Establishment Bill, because I considered its principles opposed to .the Constitution.

Mr Ronald:

– And contrary to the letter of the Constitution as well.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– My chief complaint against the Government is that, although the honorable member for South Australia, Sir Langdon Bonython, asked a question upon this subject upon two or three occasions, they refused to give him any information. They wanted to make out that no communications had taken place between them and the Home authorities, and yet for eighteen months they had been in possession of Mr. Chamberlain’s despatches, and knew of the correspondence which had taken place between the State Governments and the Home Secretary. The Prime Minister, in introducing the Governor-General’s Establishment Bill, made no reference either to this correspondence or to his understanding with the Governor-General. He moved the second reading in a half-hearted way, and when the Government saw that the House was against them, they allowed a private member, sitting behind them, to take out the vital principles of the Bill and submit something quite different, a thing which I never saw done before during my political life. The Bill originally provided for an annual grant of £8,000, but when it left committee it provided only for a grant of £10,000 to defray the Governor-General’s expenses in entertaining the Royal visitors, which honorable members unanimously felt should not come out of his own pocket. Every one regrets that the Governor-General has thought it necessary, in view of the determination of Parliament, to resign his position, but if I were called upon to deal with this matter to-morrow, I should be compelled to take a similar course to that followed on the former occasion. The Government submitted the Governor - General’s Establishment Bill to the House in such a way as to infringe the Constitution, and to. place it beyond our power to assist the Governor-General. During the federal election campaign the Prime Minister specially warned the people against returning representatives who had voted against the Commonwealth Bill, because he said that they would probably take the first opportunity of altering the Constitution. Now the Prime Minister is the first man to attempt to alter the Constitution, not in the interests of the struggling masses in the Commonwealth, but in order to provide for .a large additional salary for the Governor-General. The Attorney-General has stated that His Excellency the Governor-General did not resign on account of any difference with ‘his advisers; but if the relations existing between the ‘Governor - General and the Ministry were as cordial as they should have been, why did he keep them in ignorance of his intention to resign. As one who has been a Minister for many years, I am well acquainted with the relations which exist between the Governors of States and their Ministers, and I know that there is nothing to prevent the Governors from conferring in the most friendly and cordial way with their advisers. We know from the Attorney-General.that, as a matter of fact, His Excellency has conferred with his Ministers on several occasions since his resignation. And we may assume that if the relations between the Governor-General and his Ministers had been thoroughly cordial he would have taken an opportunity of placing them in possession of the whole of the facts of the case ‘before finally tendering his -resignation. The Ministry ^should have placed before us the whole of the correspondence between the State Governments and Mr. ‘Chamberlain as well as that which took place between the Prime Minister .and Mr. Chamberlain. The way in which the whole matter has been bungled by the Government has entailed an amount Of unpleasantness which must be regretted bv every honorable member.

Mr O’MALLEY:
Tasmania

– If , the Government are -to -be condemned, it is because they did not put the whole case fairly before the Secretary of State for the Colonies The moment,the Government received that despatch from Mi’. Chamberlain they should have notified him and the Governor-General that they would introduce no such Bill as was indicated. The Governor-General should have been informed that his total income would be represented by his salary, and that he would not be expected to maintain hisestablishment on the same scale of extraordinary extravagance as that which he had seen in India prior to his coming here. It is a mistake to institute comparisons between the condition of .affairs in India and those which prevail in this country. While the people of this country are a plain and simple majestic democracy, resting upon their strength and intelligence, the people of India ave still in a state-of semi-savagery, and have to be kept in awe by means of a lot of glitter and show. The GovernorGeneral in Canada does not entertain in the way our Governors do. I bold that when the whole of the people of the Commonwealth are asked to contribute their quota towards the maintenance of Government House, .any entertainments given there should be arranged on the broad basis of democratic justice, and the whole of the people should be invited there to drink wine, and dine, and enjoy themselves. If the whole of the people are not invited to the entertainments at Government House, those who pay the taxes, should demand that their money should be spent only in entertaining the accredited representatives . cif the foreign nations in this country. If the Governor-General desires to show hospitality to any one else, lie must do so as a private gentleman, just as the President of the United States does. No one will for a moment contend that the President of the -United States is inferior in intelligence or in any other respect to the Governor-General df Australia, and yet he is allowed only £4;000 per annum for ‘entertaining the foreign ambassadors, and £10,000 as salary. If there is aLl’y great -extravagance in connexion with the establishment -of Government House the people will rise up and drive all those responsible for it into the sea. I do not blame the Secretary of State for the Colonies for his despatches. Hitherto the various States have asked for Governors with titles and with money, and not for men of character. They have apparently wanted ‘Governors to spend money, and to teach the young people growing up in Australia to be thorough snobs and cads. I hold that -the Secretary of State for the Colonies is not to be blamed, but that the tone of his despatches is due to the attitude hitherto assumed by the people of the Commonwealth. It appears that there are no Englishmen available who are sufficiently rich to enable them to accept the position of Governor-General, but I would point out that an American, Mr. Waldorf Astor, who is now in England, has an income of £1,000,000ayear, and that he would probably accept the position of Governor-General. If he comes here he will spend so much money that he will be able to place a barrel of whisky and a basket of champagne at the foot of every gooseberry bush in the Government House gardens. Wives are told that if they wish to please their husbands they must feed the beasts, and apparently ifany one wishes to retain the loyalty of the Australian people he must feed them. The people must be fed and fattened, and sent home in their carriages at night with tickets on them, so that their wives may know them and take them in. If the Secretary of State for the Colonies did not look upon our people in this light, why should he refer in his despatches to the question of entertaining the people of the Commonwealth ? I am sorryto say that there is no real democracy in Australia. As soon as people make a few pounds, they crawl and twist like caterpillars to get into the society of those who have driven the Governor-General into such extraordinary extravagance. I hold that the present is one of the most extraordinary aristocratic strikes that will ever take place in the history of the Commonwealth. There is evidently a governors’ union in England, which has ordered a strike, and the GovernorGeneral’s resignation is one of the consequences. When I was in New South Wales recently I saw that the squatters and farmers had to import fodder to save their starving stock, and we want no extravagance in connexion with the maintenance of Government House whilst our people are in such sore straits. Yet it is advocated that there should be more extravagance at Government House. Such a policy will hasten the day when the people will ask themselves whether they are not paying too much for their “ golden whistle” - for this pomp and ceremony of the middle centuries. My trip through New South Wales has satisfied me of the necessity of having fodder free of duty, and I can see quite clearly that there will be hundreds of men and women out of work if this terrible drought continues. Instead of debating the question of providing entertainment for guests at Government House, we ought to be discussing ways and means of assisting these poor people. If we placed Astor in the position of Governor-General we should, after five years of wilful waste and prodigality, be so satiated that we would return to Spartan simplicity. Thomas J efferson, whose name will be remembered when every man here is dead and forgotten, rode to White House on his old horse, and hitched it up outside while he was being inaugurated as President. Washington practised simplicity, and although he died worth only 80,000 dollars, he did not draw his pay as President for eight years, and that money still lies in the Treasury of the United States. The salary of the President of the United States was only £5,000 a year until 1870, when Grant raised it to £10,000. I object to members and newspapers preaching economy as advocated on the Kyabram platform, and at the same time saying not a word about extravagance in an institution which ought to set an example. The honorable and learned member for Brisbane spoke as though the spending of money was all that was desired; but the possession of wealth entails great responsibility to the community, from which itmust be obtained. Wealth is only a power to command labour, and if a man possessed all the gold on the earth, and could not employ others, he might as well possess so many pebbles. I confess that New South Wales is greatly to blame for our present position. There is too much State interference, and the time has come when the Commonwealth must tell each State that it is only onesixth of the Commonwealth. The States are a subordinate power, and the Commonwealth the supreme power, and State rights end where Commonwealth rights begin. So long as I have the honour to be in this House I shall oppose all extravagance, whether in the keeping up of Government House or in other directions. The President of the great MexicanRepublic, with 13,000,000 of people, lives in a private house and entertains his friends like any private gentleman. In Australia, however, the only experience we have had has been that of borrowing money and wilful extravagance. We ought now to start to pay off our debts, and we may depend thatso far from being condemned in England for our action in regard to the allowances of the Governor-General, we shall be applauded as showing a disposition to economize. I do not say for one moment that His Excellency intended to overawe the people with extravagance, but he came out with an exalted idea of our desire for entertainment. In conclusion, let me say, once and for all, that the party to which I have the honour to belong will, whether they sink or swim, oppose all extravagance.

Mr BROWN:
Canobolas

– The debate has turned mainly on the one question why the Governor-General has seen fit to tender his resignation. I am in accord with those who are desirous of getting some further explanation as to the reasons which have actuated His Excellency. So far as information has been vouchsafed, I have a strong feeling that neither the Governor-General nor this House has been properly treated by the Government. It has been disclosed that an understanding that an increase of the nature proposed should be made was arrived at before the Federal Government was formed. That was the outcome of the meetings of ; the Premiers who represented the several colonies which were about to enter the federal compact. New South Wales subsequently passed a temporary measure providing for her share of the expenditure. A similar Bill was introduced into the Victorian Legislature, but failed to pass, while no move was made in the other States. It will be seen from the despatches that the matter was brought under the notice of the Federal Government practically at the outset of their career, and it is here, I think, that both the Governor-General and the House have a grievance. The Government, although the matter was placed before them at such an early date, allowed expenditure to continue on the understanding that certain legislation would be introduced, and to that extent they are responsible. More than twelve months afterwards the Government introduced the Bill authorizing increased expenditure, but even at that stage they failed to place the House in possession of necessary information. If it were not right that the House should have the information at that stage, it is not right that the House should have the information now. Attempts have been made to gloze over the apparent failure of the Government to do justice to the

Governor-General, to the State, and the Parliament. When the Bill was introduced it became apparent from the objections taken by members who sit behind the Government, that it was not going to meet the reception which had been anticipated, and then a supporter did what I think was contrary to constitutional methods. The message from His Excellency the GovernorGeneral covered a Bill of a particular character; but at the instance of the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne the measure was converted into one of a quite different character. What I object to is the honorable and learned member appearing now as an apologist, with a wish to divert the attention of the House from the position which has to be met, to another which he creates by alleging that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has attempted to dictate to the Commonwealth and the House in this matter. He bases that contention upon the last clause of one of the despatches, and particularly upon the use of the word “hope.” Before I leave that matter I wish to say that I should protest as strongly as would any honorable member against anything approaching dictation on the part of the Colonial-office in regard to the Commonwealth Parliament, but I fail to see anything savouring of dictation in these despatches. If the Government thought that terms were dictated which they ought not to accept, they should have told the House. But I have not been able to find anything of the kind. In these despatches Mr. Chamberlain was placing before the responsible advisers of the Crown the position which had apparently been agreed upon some time prior to the inauguration of federation by some of the responsible Ministers of the States. What did the Prime Minister say, so far back as February, 1901, when acknowledging receipt of this despatch ? His words are worthy of record, as showing the position which the Government then took up -

Mr. Barton presents his humble duty to Your Excellency, and requests to be allowed to acknowledge the receipt through Your Excellency of copy of a despatch, dated 11th January last, from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the subject of making suitable provision for the expenses of Your Excellency’s establishment and for the charges of entertainment.

Mr. Barton begs to intimate that the Ministers for the Commonwealth have agreed to submit a measure to the Parliament which, in his view, will meet the situation to which Mr. Secretary Chamberlain’s despatch refers.

It was only after the House had refused to accept the Governor-General’s ‘ Establishment Bill, as introduced by the ‘Government, and the Governor-General, for some weighty reason which has not been made clear, hod felt it incumbent upon him to resign his high position, that these important despatches, and the undertaking made therein by the Government, were placed in the hands nf Parliament. The increase of salary is another matter. I am in sympathy with those who believe that it is desirable to keep down any undue expenditure at the present time, and that it is no part of the duty of the Commonwealth to provide for expensive entertainments at Government House, which are availed of by only a very few people. I have here a list of the salaries that are paid to persons filling high positions, quite as important and as expensive as that of the Governor-General of the Commonwealth. The President of the United States of America, who is invested with very much greater power, and who is practically the ruler of a very much greater number of people, receives the same salary as that provided for the Governor-General - £10,000 a year. The Prime Minister of Great Britain receives only £2,000 per annum ; the Governor-General of Canada, £10,000; the High Commissioner of South Africa, £8,000 ; the Envoy to Egypt, £6,000 ; the Ambassador to France, £9,000; the Ambassador to Germany, £8,000 ; the Ambassador to Russia, £7,800 ; the Ambassador to Austria, £8,000 ; the Minister to China, £5,000 ; the Governor of Madras, £7,500 ; and the Governor of Bombay, £7,500. I do not wish to debate this matter at any length, but simply to express my regret that the Government did not see their way to take the House into their confidence at an earlier stage. It would have been only just to the House and to the Governor-General to have done so. I regret that when the Government, did see fit to fulfil their pledge to the GovernorGeneral, and through him to the Home authorities, they adopted the course pursued by them, and withheld certain vital information relating to the question. Another matter which I wish to bring under the notice of the Government is the dire effects of the drought, not only in New South “Wales, but practically throughout the Commonwealth. In the newspapers we find reports from every centre of great losses that are imminent, owing to the continuance of the drought, and of the efforts which are being made by stockowners, farmers, and squatters to keep their stock alive until the drought breaks up, when they will be able to obtain natural fodder. Practically, the supplies of fodder throughout the States have been exhausted. I have here a communication published in one of the Sydney newspapers from a gentleman who deals largely in forage. He points out that fodder is practically unpurchaseable in South Australia, owing to the large demands from Victoria, and that the shortage represents something like 200,000 tons of stuff for pressing requirements in the drought districts, and ordinary requirements in the State. Notwithstanding that, the Government have placed duties upon imported fodder. “When they were imposed it was thought that we had sufficient for all requirements ; and that the duties would be inoperative, but the continuance of the drought has produced an abnormal condition, with the result that what in ordinary seasons would have been an ample supply has been consumed. Our last resort is to import fodder from New Zealand, South America, and other places. I am informed that orders from Sydney have been placed in South America, and it must be remembered that in addition to the actual purchase money stock-owners will have to pay the duties on fodder. The Federal Government can assist these men by temporarily removing the duties. I see to-day that a judgment has been given, the purport of which is that under their present laws the Federal Government cannot legally impose duties upon goods that, prior to the introduction of the Tariff, were admitted free. If that decision becomes operative it will remove the duties on fodder sp far as New South Wales is concerned, but I understand that the Government propose to prevent the operation of the decision by some further action. On the ground of humanity, and upon the further ground that we ought to maintain the interests of stock-owners in the several States, I suggest that the Government should exercise a certain amount of leniency in this respect, and enable stock-owners to obtain fodder free of duty. On one holding in my electorate - and the western portion of it 13 suffering very severely- a firm is spending, £2,000-per week in feeding its stock. Practically all the stock in the western districts of New South Wales is being fed on fodder introduced from outside. A limitation has now been placed upon supplies, and I trust that the Government will consult with the State Governments, and arrive at some means of averting, to some extent, the great loss that threatens our grazing and farming community.

Mr. SYDNEY SMITH (Macquarie).-I think that the matter just brought under the notice of theGovernment by the honorable member for Canobolas is a very important one.

Sir William McMillan:

– The honorable member will have an opportunity of dealing with it to-morrow. The Minister for Trade and Customs is away.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I do not desire to lose our right to discuss this matter generally. At the present time in various districts great distress has been caused by the drought. During the inspection of the capital sites by members of the House of Representatives, we were afforded an opportunity of seeing the state of the country.

Mr Spence:

– Honorable members saw only the districts least affected by the drought.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– That is so.

Sir George Turner:

– My honorable friend will have an opportunity to discuss this matter to-morrow.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Motion (by Sir George Turner) proposed -

That the standing orders be suspended in order to enable all steps to betaken to obtain supply, and to pass a Supply Bill throughall its stages without delay.

Mr. SYDNEY SMITH (Macquarie). - I wish to point out to the Treasurer that the matter to which incidental reference has been recently made, is of such vital importance to the community that it is necessary to ventilate it at once.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

– I think that the Government might very well postpone the further consideration of the Bill until to-morrow, so that honorable members may have an opportunity to discuss the matter to which the honorable member for Macquarie wishes to allude. Will not Friday be early enough for the Supply Bill?

Sir George Turner:

– No, it must be passed to-night, so that we may make our payments before the end of the month.

Mr Deakin:

– As to-morrow is grievance Thursday, honorable members will then be able to discuss the matter to which the honorable gentleman refers.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution of Committee of Supply adopted.

In Committee of Ways and Means. -

Motion (by Sir George Turner) proposed -

That towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the services of the year ending 30th June, 1902, the sum of £493,043 bo granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

– I wish to know if this amount covers the salary of any officer who has been appointed to the public service from outside, or promoted from the rank of temporary employé to that of permanent employé since the last Supply Bill was introduced ?

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
TreasurerBalaclava · Protectionist

– I do notthink so. On the last occasion when a Supply Bill was before the House the Minister for Home Affairs stated that another officer besides the gentleman to whose appointment I then called attention had been, or was about to be, appointed, and, seeing the way in which the House dealt with the matter then, I have not followed it up any further.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported, and adopted.

Bill presented and passed through all its stages without amendment.

House adjourned at 11.28 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 May 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1902/19020528_reps_1_10/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives28 May 1902

QUESTION

TENDERS FOR FEDERAL SUPPLIES

Mr GLYNN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

QUESTION

WALKERVILLE AND WOODVILLE POST-OFFICES

Sir L ANGDON BONYTHON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

INTER-STATE RAILWAY TRAFFIC

Mr GLYNN:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Protectionist

Mr Glynn:

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR

Mr CROUCH:CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

FEDERAL FACTORY LEGISLATION

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

QUESTION

CORONATION : ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY THE KING

Mr DEAKIN:AttorneyGeneral · Ballarat · Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:Wentworth

SUPPLY BILL (No. 9)

Sir GEORGE TURNER:Treasurer · BalaclavaTreasurer · Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:Wentworth

Mr Page:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Page:

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN:

Sir George TURNER:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Thomson:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Poynton:

Mr Salmon:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Mauger:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Kennedy:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Deakin:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Deakin:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Higgins:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Page:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Deakin:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Glynn:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Brown:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Glynn:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Deakin:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Deakin:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Glynn:

Mr Deakin:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr DEAKIN:AttorneyGeneral · Ballarat · Protectionist

Mr Glynn:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Conroy:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Higgins:

Mr DEAKIN:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Glynn:

Mr DEAKIN:BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · PROT; LP from 1910

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

House of Representatives
28 May 1902

Mr GLYNN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir L ANGDON BONYTHON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr DEAKIN:
AttorneyGeneral · Ballarat · Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Treasurer · BalaclavaTreasurer · Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DEAKIN:
AttorneyGeneral · Ballarat · Protectionist

Mr DEAKIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · PROT; LP from 1910

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr WILKS:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT